Here's the first article I've seen on today's hearing. Frankly, I don't expect to see much else on this. Newsbytes is particularly good in its Y2K coverage, but this hearing isn't the kind of story to get much in the way of wider interest. Other publications might throw in a few lines about it along with stuff about the White House encouraging local "conversations," though that will be old news tomorrow. At least there's this much...

http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/131122.html

-- pshannon (pshannon@sangersreview.com), May 25, 1999

Answers

Thanks pshannon,

[snip]

"How do we walk the line of keeping people properly informed," without inciting a panic, Sen. Bennett asked at the start of the hearing.

Noted Y2K author Ed Yourdon quoted Patrick Henry in terms of the Y2K news he wanted out of the media. "It's natural for man to indulge in illusions of hope... For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cause, I'm willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it."

[snip]

Liza Christian of the Rogue Valley, Oregon Y2K Task Force had some harsh words for the media. "Where is the investigative journalism? They merely echo that `bump in the road' bias. In our experience, the media is looking for sound bites and headlines. Articles and interviews often ridicule those who make preparations to survive a hardship or crisis."

[snip]

"Time is now very short, and the level of ignorance remains alarmingly high," Adams said. "Tailored, accurate knowledge can combat ignorance, allowing for a proportinate response to what we know will be a serious issue," he also said.

[snip]

About half of all American think Y2K is one of the most serious problems facing America today, Freedom Forum Media Studies Center Director of Research Lawrence McGill said, citing a study from his own group. But about half of the public is "basically a technical issue" that doesn't require their attention. And half of all Americans do not plan to take any additional measures in preparation for possible Y2K- related interruptions, he said.

Based on information from the survey, The Freedom Forum encourages local media outlets to "focus their Y2K coverage on the kinds of information that citizens told us they needed to know how or if they should prepare for Y2K."

Hundreds of journalists are looking for the proper way to cover the Y2K problems, said Kerry Brock, the Freedom Forum's director of broadcasting and programming. Many organizations are not digging into the political and technical vulnerabilities of their local areas, simply because "they don't know they should be," Brock said.

Part of the problem, Brock said, comes from conflicting information that exists even among government agencies.

Sen. Bennett also pointed out that more "fringe" elements are posting news, some of it incorrect or designed to sway opinions, on the Internet and various Usenet newsgroups. ...

*Sigh*

[snip]

Several members echoed Nolan's sentiment that a "standard of leadership that rises to stewardship" is needed from the federal government in the handling of Y2K matters in general.

[snip--to end]

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 25, 1999.

"Sen. Bennett also pointed out that more 'fringe' elements are posting news, some of it ... designed to sway opinions..."

The gall of those citizens who think they can just openly speak their thoughts! How dare they try to sway opinions! How dare they exercize their first amendment rights in order to keep the government in check?

Thank you, also, Senator Bennett, for the ad hominem attack on those "fringe elements." Get it? We GIs are not even human, we're "elements" . . . at the fringe, read, extremists.

Sheeple: "Oh my! We wouldn't want to think extreme thoughts! Those bad extremists! Bad, bad."

Of course, being unable to think, the sheeple have never realized that a true statement is always extreme in the sense that it admits no change, otherwise it would be something other than the truth.

-- DMH (not@just.yet), May 25, 1999.

The hearing was the link of the day on CNN's All Politics.

Don't be so sure.

-- . (.@...), May 25, 1999.